PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Federal Court Declines to Dismiss Excess Carrier’s Suit Seeking Reimbursement of Amounts Paid in Underlying Medical Malpractice Settlement

April 15, 2019 by Gregory Gidus

Medical Malpractice

Reprinted with permission in Medical Liability Monitor In Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co. v. Conemaugh Health Systems, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-153 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2019), the Western District of Pennsylvania refused to dismiss an excess carrier's suit seeking reimbursement from its insured for settlement amounts the excess carrier paid in an underlying medical malpractice lawsuit. According to the court, Ironshore plausibly alleged that Conemaugh Health Systems Inc. ... Keep Reading »

Break Out Your Crystal Ball: New York’s First Department Relies on Policy’s Mitigation Provision as Support for Allegation That Consequential Damages Were Foreseeable

April 5, 2019 by Nora Valenza-Frost

An insured sought coverage under its commercial property insurance policy for property damage incurred after construction work was performed in an adjoining building. Contending the insurer’s “investigatory process has taken so long and become so attenuated that the structural damage to the building has worsened,” the insured brought suit for breach of contract for failure to pay a covered loss under its insurance policy and breach of the implied covenant of good faith ... Keep Reading »

Coverage Issues Relating to Drones Take on New Heights: A California District Court Finds Drone-Related Injury Falls Within Policy’s Aircraft Exclusion

March 29, 2019 by Christina Gallo

drone

In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Hollycal Production Inc. et. al., No. 5:18-cv-00768-PA-SP (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2018), a California district court held that Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. was not obligated to defend or indemnify a photography firm whose drone blinded a wedding guest in one eye, finding that the drone-related injury fell within the policy’s aircraft exclusion. Darshan Kamboj, a guest at a California wedding, claimed that she lost sight in ... Keep Reading »

Homeowners Insurance Has Unintended Consequence, Insurer Must Defend Teen in Cyberbullying Suit

March 25, 2019 by Emma Mintz

Young girl viewing unpleasant message on cell phone

In State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Motta, et al., No 18-cv-3956 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2018), the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court held that State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. had a duty to defend a teenage boy against a lawsuit accusing him of cyberbullying one of his classmates that led her to commit suicide, under the boy’s mothers’ homeowners insurance policy. Julia Morath died by suicide within a couple of days of Zach Trimbur attacking her, via text message ... Keep Reading »

No Offer, No Rejection, No Bad Faith: Georgia Supreme Court Limits Liability for an Insurer’s Bad Faith Refusal to Settle

March 15, 2019 by Amanda Proctor and Christopher B. Freeman

On March 11, 2019, the Georgia Supreme Court handed down an important decision in First Acceptance Insurance Company of Georgia, Inc. v. Hughes, which further clarifies the circumstances under Georgia law for when an insurer may be liable for bad faith in refusing to settle a claim within policy limits. In Hughes, the insured caused a multi-vehicle accident and resulting injury to five individuals. An attorney who represented two of those individuals – Julie An and ... Keep Reading »

Second Circuit Holds “Offering for Sale” Is “Advertising Injury” Under CGL Policy, But Allegation Not Enough to Trigger Duty to Defend

March 12, 2019 by Alex B. Silverman

  Several months ago we blogged about the duty to defend advertising injury claims under commercial general liability (CGL) policies, noting that many courts continue to struggle with the practical application of basic duty to defend principles in this context. The court in that particular case had no such issues. In a more recent decision, however, the potential complexities of this task were on full display. See High Point Design LLC v. LM Insurance Corp. et ... Keep Reading »

Nevada Supreme Court Holds That Insurer’s Liability for Breach of the Duty to Defend is Not Capped at Policy Limits

February 15, 2019 by Rachel Schwartz

Truck Wrong Way

In Century Surety Company v. Dana Andrew (Dec. 13, 2018), the Nevada Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding whether, under Nevada law, the liability of an insurer that has breached its duty to defend, but not acted in bad faith, is capped at the policy limit plus any costs incurred by the insured in mounting a defense, or whether the insurer is liable for all losses consequential to the insurer's breach. Ryan Pretner ("Pretner") and Pretner's guardian (Respondents) ... Keep Reading »

Will Insurance be the Death of Football? Market Constricts Amid Brain Injury Concerns

January 30, 2019 by Brendan Gooley

If you’re a football fan, you probably know that the NFL, despite its continued success, has had to address a range of problems and scandals over the past few years. Those problems range from off-season domestic violence incidents to on-the-field issues involving free speech by players and blown calls by officials. Indeed, the professional football world is currently up in arms over a bad no-call during a key play in a conference championship game that may have cost the ... Keep Reading »

When Evidentiary Error Matters: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Decision to Grant Retrial

January 25, 2019 by Kelley Godfrey

Car Wreck

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently closed the book on litigation in which GEICO had been involved since 2010, holding that the granting of a retrial—which resulted in a GEICO victory after an initial verdict of more than $5 million had been rendered against the insurer—was warranted and appropriate. See Joshua Moore v. GEICO General Ins. Co., No. 17-13655 (11th Cir. Dec. 14, 2018). The story began with a rejected GEICO settlement offer following ... Keep Reading »

Beware Of The Warranty – Second Circuit Relies On Terms Of Warranty, Not Policy, To Make Coverage Determination

January 18, 2019 by Andrew Daechsel

Can the terms of a warranty impact the scope of coverage provided by an insurance policy even if the policy does not explicitly incorporate the terms of the warranty? The answer to this question appears to be yes, at least under New York law, according to the recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Patriarch Partners, LLC v. Axis Ins. Co., No. 17-3022, 2018 WL 6431024 (2d Cir. Dec. 6, 2018). Insured Issues Warranty To Insurer Related To ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • …
  • 48
  • Next Page »
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Florida District Court Orders New Trial After Jury Allowed to Hear Evidence on Claim Handling in Insurance Breach of Contract Claim
  • Sixth Circuit Finds No E&O Coverage for GL Carrier Under E&O Policy for Underlying Motel Claim
  • Connecticut Federal Court Construes Ambiguous Policy Exclusion in Favor of Coverage, but Rejects Bad Faith Claim

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing